[Gllug] EU council streaming petition

[salsaman at xs4all.nl]

> salsaman at xs4all.nl wrote:
>> Yet
>>
>
> They're not, nor is there any intention to do so, nor has anyone
> _suggested_ there should be.  Don't base your arguments on "well what
> if...?" scenarios.

This is Microsoft we are talking about. A company who does anything in its
power (legal or illegal) to keep its monopoly position. Unfortunately we
must consider "what if" situations and be prepared for them.

>
>> How easy would it be for M$ to add encryption to the next version of
>> .wmv,
>> such that only Vista/Windows Media Player could legally de-crypt it ?
>>
>
> About this easy   ---->     <----
>
> I don't follow your point.
>
> The streams are not encrypted, there is not indication they are going to
> be.

Why wouldn't Microsoft do such a thing ? If they thought it would hinder
rival software players without causing problems for themselves, they would
do it.


> Your argument is _stupid_.  Had the article said "From Jan 1st
> 2007, all streams of EU meetings will only be viewable by MS Media
> Player version X running on Windows Vista and we'll back that up with
> some crypto voodoo" then, yes, your argument would perhaps  be valid.
> They haven't, it isn't.
>
>> It would then be illegal to decrypt it.
>>
>
> Nope. Fair use, despite what our American friends may have you believe.
> The DMCA does not apply in Europe.

Agreed. But we have the EUCD instead, which if anything, is worse than the
DMCA.


>
>> The .wmv format is also patented. Same problem as with .mp3, .gif and
>> jpeg.
>>
>
> Thousands of other things you use on a daily basis are patented without
> you giving it a thought.  Or do you use an open source razor?

If the razor I use has some patented part, then you better believe the
company that makes it either owns that patent, or has licensed it for a
fee.

>
>> See also the Virtual Dub article I posted a link to. Microsoft could
>> threaten VLC with a lawsuit any time they wanted.
>>
>
> Microsoft can threaten anyone with a lawsuit any time they want, as can I.

The difference is, Microsoft have the means and money to wear away any
rival, regardless of whether they have a valid case or not. And in this
case, they do have a patent on the wmv format. They could most likely get
a summary judgement prohibiting distribution of a wmv encoder wherever
their patent is valid.

Many Linux distributions (e.g. Redhat) don't come out of the box with an
mp3 player, and debian will not distribute the wmv decoder or encoder
because of patent issues.

>
>> Or they could simply change the next version of .wmv to be incompatible,
>> like they do with .doc, and then it would require reverse engineering
>> all
>> over again.
>>
>
> And?

So what do we do in the meantime, while we are waiting for some generous
person to reverse engineer the latest version ?

The basic point is, why use a standard whose terms of use and development
are dictated by one company, when there exists an open standard which can
be used by anybody ?

Gabriel.


-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug